This week Danny Shechtman, a modest professor at the Technion, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This is a great victory for him, but more than that - it is a great victory for science
This week Danny Shechtman, a modest professor at the Technion, received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This is a great victory for him, but more than that - it is a great victory for science.
Schechtman took the path of the scumbags that ended with the Nobel Prize exactly thirty years ago, when he studied metallic alloys at Johns Hopkins University as a promising young scientist. While working on the microscope, he saw something he wasn't supposed to see - an orderly pattern that repeats itself in a variable manner, similar to the way a certain melody can repeat itself throughout the same song with slight improvisations each time. It was a pattern that shouldn't have been there. According to all the knowledge in the hands of the scientific community at the time, Shechtman's 'discovery' was nothing more than an error in measurement, which originated from the young scientist's lack of experience.
Shechtman could have abandoned the discovery with a sigh, but after examining the sample several more times, he realized that he had no choice - he had to fight to prove his way was right. And surprisingly - he also succeeded.
Why is this surprising? Because a vast majority of the scientific community believed with complete faith that he was wrong. It is a mistake in conducting the experiment, interpreting the results or even blatant cheating. And the more they believed in their righteousness, the higher the tones and the stronger the negative feelings. Shechtman became in a short period of time an icon in scientific circles. Even after the experiment was reproduced in several different laboratories, Schechtman encountered resistance from the senior scientists in the field, and especially from Linnaeus Pauling, a previous Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. Their opposition continued long after a large part of the scientists agreed that there was truth in Shechtman's discovery.
So what do we have here? It is precisely in the hallowed halls of science, where scientists are supposed to weigh their words carefully, that we encounter banter and a group 'outrage' that was used against Shechtman. Even in the scientific institution that prides itself on being free of biases and emotions, that the scientists working under its wings are supposed to accept the evidence obtained from experiments in the field and prefer it to fixed and outdated opinions - even there we see an almost religious adherence to theories that have lost their strength.
Suppressor? The truth is that no more can be expected from any human community. We are stubborn creatures. Evolution has shaped our minds so that they do not easily abandon the ideas that have been instilled in them during life. There were good reasons for this. If the ancient man insisted on rechecking every year whether the fire in the campfire still burned his fingers, he would not have survived long. So at a certain point he accepted the idea that fire is dangerous as a convention, and stopped challenging it. Throughout our lives we look for additional conventions and adhere to them as best we can, and scientists are no different from other human beings in this tendency.
These insights guide many of the pseudo-science speakers of various kinds: the creationists who go against the theory of evolution (and claim that the age of the world does not exceed 6,000 years), the homeopaths who claim that heaven is endowed with an active memory (but they do not remember their journey through the toilet), the Chinese stabbers who advocate the existence of paths energy that exists in the body (that have never been discovered) and many others. Everyone claims that the scientific community is closed, xenophobic, and against any new idea.
But Danny Shechtman's Nobel Prize proves them wrong. The scientific community, despite all the closed and sealed minds within it, continued to advance and update its views almost every year. Some of the scientists were able to adopt the new data into their hearts. Others, mostly elderly and more stubborn, returned their souls to the Creator and stopped expressing their objections. And in short, the individual scientists change or die, but the entire scientific community moves forward and recognizes the greatness of Shechtman's discovery.
Such cases are not rare in science. The winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2005, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, also went against the entire scientific community when they claimed that there are bacteria that cause stomach ulcers (also known as ulcers). They became scientifically and socially isolated, and at the bottom of the scale they even agreed to sip from a glass containing the dangerous bacteria, hoping to get stomach ulcers themselves, and thereby demonstrate the power of the bacteria. Marshall did so, suffering from a stomach ulcer, causing many scientists to take the two's claims more seriously. Even then, it took another twenty long years before the two won the Nobel Prize for Medicine.
It's time to say in a clear and loud voice: scientists are human too. Small people, petty and closed to new ideas like the rest of us. But the unofficial body known as the scientific community manages to rise above the selfish and momentary desires of its members, and bring humanity one step closer to the truth, time after time.
Danny Shechtman's victory is the victory of a stubborn young man over even more stubborn old men. He is the victory of an Israeli Sahbak who saw all those around him as equals, and refused to consider the lofty positions of those who rejected his opinion. But more than all these, this is the victory of science, as the best tool known to us for discovering the truth.
On a side note - I got to work with Danny on the FameLab competition, where he was invited to be a judge. During lunch together, he taught me a simple magic with the dinnerware, and I taught him an even simpler magic. So now I can proudly and rightly say that - "I taught the winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2011".
Well, another line for the resume.
71 תגובות
When:
The claim that creationists do not have a reason the size of one atom does not stem from some principle of defending evolution and opposing creationism.
It simply stems from the facts on the ground.
All the arguments ever made by them have been found to be unfounded.
Maybe one day a good argument will come up, but so far it hasn't happened.
my father
I believe with all my heart in evolution
Nevertheless, I will do a mental exercise with you and ask you a challenging question:-
Do you believe that man is capable of making very sophisticated machines?
Can they be so sophisticated that they even have self-awareness?
If the answer to one of the two questions is negative then you unfortunately do not believe in the power of evolution.
However, if the answer to both questions is positive, please answer the following question:-
What would one of the self-aware sophisticated machines answer if asked who created it?
Would you agree with me that she would answer that a creator created her?
So why didn't a Creator create us too?
Note that I showed a possibility that creationism stems from evolution and is the pinnacle of evolution, that is, the highest stage of evolution!
So I'm 99.9% sure that we were created in an evolutionary process, but I'm sure that not all the intelligent beings that exist in the universe will be/were created in such a process!
Not easy
good night my father
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda, we have disagreements in physics, but in the field of biology I don't think you should have a problem with what has been written in Science and Nature for 150 years. And besides, Science and Nature are the authorized factors to determine what is scientific and what is not, and if someone wants to change something, he should start through them.
My dear father
You are not defending scientific truth
You are at most defending what appears in Science Venture
Of course, assuming that this is the scientific truth, which is only true in 99% of the cases.
Also give a chance to different opinions even if you are sure they are not true.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Indeed, I am not responsible for the nonsense written on other websites, there are conspiracy websites that claim that America carried out the September 11 attacks, today we saw that Gaddafi claimed in his appearance a few months ago at the UN assembly that Kennedy was murdered because he ordered to check what was in Dimona., there are websites where D is a charity organization and not a movement that invented the Jewish Missionary, and for fun and nonsense, I am responsible for my little plot (the flying spaghetti monster) and here I make sure (in the articles, it's hard to tell you commenters what to write) to give a single place of expression to the scientific truth.
when are
You shall have no other God…. This is nonsense in your theory, there are no question marks, no research, no maybe. There are different Pharisees whose goal is to understand more interpret more but never to cancel not to oppose.
Simply put, without shame or disdain, this absolute blind faith is the very antithesis, the absolute opposite of the scientific way, which is definitely not perfect, changing, not always clear, groping its way more than once like a blind man
. Science will continue to thrive and investigate even if belief in the theory of evolution ever ceases, but religion will disappear
If ever faith in God's teachings ceases.
Happy holiday
Dear father, I am afraid that for the sake of your credibility and for the sake of the theory of evolution, its limits must also be acknowledged.
Faced with the extremism of a complete denial of the existence of sexual development, it would therefore be pointless to exaggerate the other side and declare that "Creationists have no scientific basis, not even the size of one atom" - the site's surfers are not surfing a filtered internet that only allows access to the "Hidan" site, which suppresses the hilarity ( from the tongue of an idol) of the theory will be shattered at once when the surfer reads a little about the forbidden archeology or the multiple intelligence in the various mechanisms in the organism.
As mentioned above, I personally do not deny evolution, the discussion is only how to treat the creationists' claims.
Matti, you are probably a lost cause, but my response is addressed to all kinds of other people who may be seduced by the creationist propaganda as if it were science. Well creationism is No Science, and all its quasi-scientific arguments originate from a misinterpretation of evolution. If these were scientific claims, the scientific establishment would embrace them, but the goal of creationists is one - to introduce religion into schools in a way that would be politically correct, despite the first amendment to the constitution.
Creationists do not have any scientific basis, even in the size of one atom. But you probably remain at your point of departure even though Camila proved you wrong in the interpretation of evolution that led you to think that it had holes in it. The holes are in the scarecrow of evolution built by the creationists and not in the Torah itself which is solid and has passed all the difficult tests so far.
Michael Shalom, this article deals specifically with speakers from among scientists, and its essence is the claim that among scientists there is often both fixation and a biased or emotional attitude = "the tragedy of the scientists".
The fact that, while writing, the writer uses the stage to refer to creationists as "pseudo-science speakers" while underneath there are many scientific claims is what dawned on me, and therefore I quoted his words in a paraphrase on the subject of evolution in the first response, but I did not enter into the discussion of evolution itself at all.
I am afraid, therefore, that your claim regarding the "exaggeration in the description of what appear to be failures in the theory of evolution" is the result of a loose reading of the article, which makes the statements seem extreme and extreme. Also, I now see that the final paragraphs that were supposed to emphasize that my words are a quote from the writer - were forgotten in the typing race - and therefore I am also partly to blame.
And in conclusion, even if in the writer's opinion - the scientific claims of the creationists are flawed/incorrect/erroneous - it is still a scientific discourse that cannot be called "pseudo science". To remind you, the creation theory consists of logical claims about a cause and a primary cause, claims about reason that contradicts randomness, as well as scientific claims that point to failures in the neo-Darwinist theory.
And so the discussion must be conducted about the speakers among the scientists and the fixation and bias in which they are located and among them the writer of this article.
my father
First of all, I personally categorize all religions as types of philosophies that have nothing in common between them and science and there is no connection between them and reality, so it is better to avoid a deliberate debate that mistakenly presents them as a cause
Has any supposed scientific weight.
In jokes what.. aiming for the fittest or the stronger to survive, it seems that in a few decades only the religious/believing/creationists will survive and then some of them will begin to understand and believe in evolution. And some will claim that it is the hand of God.
Regarding evolution, I estimate that if time reveals more and more evidence through research and science that there are quite a few forces or factors that operate and influence the changes in the genome regardless of natural selection or other logic, even if survival and existence are the drive that drives the wheels of evolution, then it seems that at the top of the pyramid are the viruses and everything which evolved beyond, carries much fewer tools and means to survive.
Light, if you were attacked for 150 years, you too would try to defend yourself. There is no alternative theory, otherwise it would have already replaced evolution with science. Any other attempt, as the US courts have already determined, is religion in disguise. A truth must be told, even if someone does not like it for ideological, religious or other reasons.
Mutations are also part of evolution since Darwin's time. After Gold, it is clear that external phenomena also had effects, for example the clearing of niches due to an asteroid impact, sudden weather changes (we see this today in the mass extinctions, some of which are indeed the result of the capture of habitats by man, but the majority - from climate change). Evolution gives the most comprehensive picture, and there is no section that does not affect it, except for abiogenesis.
But for creationists, creation and development (or stagnation) after it are part of the same theory, which does not offer anything positive but only looks for imaginary flaws, which mainly stem from a misunderstanding of evolution.
Those who want a lie, should go to the sites of Mahbatim, those who want the truth, even if it hurts, will find it here.
Hello father
The theory of evolution certainly does not encompass the whole of this development/change due to mutations, and/or gene transitions between different creatures other than through reproduction or inheritance, etc.
One of the phenomena that occur in it from time to time are similar to those of people of faith or religion. And it automatically excludes any finding or opinion that may damage its integrity.
I do not rule out evolution in general, but it is only one of all the reasons or motives that shape the world of flora and fauna.
When:
I did address the matter, but you brought the personal treatment from others on yourself.
You are invited to read your first comment in this discussion and see that it does not discuss anything (related to science) but the speakers within it (those scientists in the "sanctified halls of science" who "argue" and make "aliyaum").
Not only is this a claim against the bodies of speakers, but it is a false claim against the bodies of speakers.
By the way, another topic that you dismiss in your opinion is when in this response https://www.hayadan.org.il/shechtman-victory-of-science-0810118/#comment-310393
You write "But in general, to deviate from the subject of this article on its consequences (the modesty and humility required of scientists) to the subject of evolution is not a scientific style. ” while you are the one who brought evolution into the discussion in your first comment in this discussion.
Your claim in another response as if your words deal with the religious adherence of the scientists to theories loses its validity in light of the fact that in your first response you sailed through a description of what you consider to be failures in the theory of evolution - a description that is based on many mistakes, and that your entire claim regarding religious adherence falls as soon as it is proven wrong.
Abi, your claim is controversial.
Michael, the difference between you and the software "Hotsonitis from a distance" is that you referred to things and he referred to speakers. Treating things is legitimate and always desirable. Which is not the case for speakers.
In any case, I invite those interested in discussing matters to contact mati @ smix.co.il (without margins)
When:
In light of your request not to mock, I went to read the link that Hingue gave us and discovered that it was a link that was mocked even without being mocked.
The whole thing is full of distortions of logic and it is clear that what motivates him is not the attempt to reach the truth but rather the attempt to reach a conclusion that has been decided in advance.
He admits that there was a fusion of chromosomes, but he does not even try to answer the question "What happened to all the humans where the fusion did not take place?" Why aren't there any nowadays?"
All the "difficulties" he raises exist even in a situation where the merger would have occurred in humans - but these are solvable difficulties.
He merely created a theory that suffers from one (substantial!) additional difficulty.
And of course - evidence of a common origin often exists and you are invited to continue to ignore the following link (which has already been presented to you many times and which really leaves no room for doubt):
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/
There is of course a way in which you can make contact with each other, but this way requires identification and is therefore only suitable for people who are not ashamed of what they say.
Before you visit the science site, drop the word science from your reference to creationism. It's a religion.
Enough of the mockery, I think that the word "science" can be omitted from the "Popular Science" website. Is it all populism?
When. Yes you can contact him, but only through short pulses of invisible light sent into the center of the galaxy with a powerful laser gun. You need to point it in the direction of their headquarters in the mother galaxy. Do you want the zip too?
Hello xianghua, is there a way to contact you?
withering,
You are making a lame argument. Finding a gradual process that creates proteins will disprove the central claim in the theory of intelligent design. The reason for this is simple:
a) According to the designer's theory - the proteins were created in their entirety
b) According to the theory of evolution, the proteins were created gradually
Hence, proving A or B will be a refutation of the competing theory.
Regarding a leading scientific explanation, for a change I would like to hear from you, what is the leading scientific explanation for the creation of a complex biological system.
What is the leading scientific explanation for finding a replicating organic robot on Mars:
A) The robot was created in a natural process that lasts billions of years
b) The robot was designed by some intelligence
What do you think is the more acceptable option?
Shingo,
https://www.hayadan.org.il/shechtman-victory-of-science-0810118/#comment-310530
You wrote: "Camila, scientific standards are those that allow the refutation of a theory. The designer theory can be disproved: find a gradual process that creates proteins and disprove the theory. So far, no scientist has done it."
It follows from your words that you do not understand what a theory is, how to disprove a theory, and what the meaning of not disproving a theory is.
Finding a gradual process that creates proteins does not disprove the nonsense of the planner, at most it will force the religious quacks to retreat into the gaps that still exist and place the same creator/planner there, just as they have done up until now in every scientific discovery about this world. Since there will always be gaps, the god of gaps will probably also always find a place. No scientist has disproved the "theory" that the enchanted pig is the one who runs the world, nor has any scientist disproved the "theory" proposed by M.R. That you live in the Matrix and were actually created just before reading these lines, with all the memories that trick you into thinking you lived a life in this world. The fact that something has not been disproved does not make it real or true. At most you can say that there is still no reason to dismiss the same idea. Since you have never given us a real opportunity (even though you have been asked to do so time and time again and the opportunity is still open to you even now) to wonder about the pot of that intelligent creator of yours, of course there is no point in taking him seriously either. Regarding intelligent creators of other types who practice all kinds of stupid religions, it has already been demonstrated many times why they are disproven based on the self-descriptions which include false facts, logical contradictions and just shocking moral rules (as they appear in their writings for example) and in any case, even if they were not disproven, no No explanation of this world has been presented that approaches the quality of a corresponding scientific explanation. If there is such an explanation, you can be sure that the scientific community (and certainly the technologists) will be very happy to adopt the ideas. The absurdity is that if religion really did provide some relevant knowledge about this world, all scientists would have been anxious a long time ago, because the scientific rules of the game are completely clear, and even if there is strong opposition of sociological origin, the scientific truth is stronger than anything and once it is discovered it is only a matter of time until it It is revealed, accepted and becomes a consensus (see the Danny Shechtman case as well as dozens of documented cases of scientific discoveries that were initially opposed). If the religious are so knowledgeable about the truths of this world, all they had to do to convert all the scientists and science lovers is to present within the framework of the scientific method (which is really simple and very basic) discoveries that science does not know yet and develop a technology that works based on those findings. It's that simple. But it turns out that even sound logical arguments, or the recognition of undisputed facts, or the ability to reason logically is beyond the abilities displayed by the representatives of religion, so perhaps it is not surprising that they try to achieve things in other ways.
Tinkering:
I have read the responses in the above discussion and I must say that the only thing you have provided evidence for is the fact that you are unable to confront reality.
Father, I have no interest in reopening the discussion. Those who wish can still access the interesting discussion that developed in the article "Evolution or Balevolution", where I presented beautiful evidence for design.
What's good about you creationists is that you have an answer for everything, wrong of course but what does it matter. If they are all classified as cats - this means that they are different species that in the general name are cats like there are monkeys - but a macaque cannot mate with a lemur, or there are great apes and yet a human cannot mate with a chimpanzee and a bonobo cannot mate with a gorilla. We have already advanced that you understand that there are families, you just refuse to recognize their common origin.
And what exactly do the nucleic acids do process amino acids and turn them into proteins, so it is still an important basis of life.
Father, how did you get to amino acids? According to the rna world hypothesis, which is the leading theory, life began with nucleic acids and not with amino acids. Second, even in controlled experiments they failed to create the four nucleotides in a single experiment simulating the same conditions. Third, even if they produce nucleotides, they will have to connect to each other and create a replicating system/molecule. And in order to connect to each other they will require a special enzyme, which itself will be super complex to create phosphodiester bonds, and on the other hand to repair for the continuation of the next replication. And all this is only on the tip of the fork. I have not yet touched on the creation of the genetic code, which is a story in itself.
Regarding tigers/cougars/cheetahs: firstly they are all still classified as cats. Second, it is necessary to compare their gene content to see if different genes differentiate between them. Third, the explanation for speciation is currently in doubt. This is because no one has demonstrated the mechanism by which genetic isolation is created. And no, I don't mean a mini ring.
Now I hope it is clear to everyone that Xingua has decided that someone who believes in something invisible and intangible that serves as a secret friend of all kinds of children or childish people is better than an establishment that has been researching a subject for 150 years.
Yes, we are relatives of the banana. Yes, cats can turn into another animal that will not have the ability to reproduce - FYI formally tigers, barred cougars and lions are all cats and they all come from the same source, so why are they considered different species? Because, after all, enough differences have accumulated that prevent them from mating.
And yes, millions of years and billions of square meters, and trillions of seconds are certainly enough time and enough space, given the fact that the basic molecules - the amino acids - are widespread even in space. The conditions of the Earth were very different than today, and it is enough that life was absorbed once to eliminate the possibility of competition (among other things due to the release of oxygen into the atmosphere). It is very easy to write the nonsense you write without thinking about it. Everything I explained above proves that I speak from knowledge and you speak from faith. Evolution explains all of these (with the exception of abiogenesis, which is a separate scientific field, but let's say that together science explains these things) while the religious have only one thing to say - it doesn't seem to me, and to prove it they simply ignore parts of the process and then cry that what is left after actions Cleaning them is not enough to create life.
Did we say scarecrow?
Tinkering:
And of course there is a lot of evidence and you ignore all of it - not because there is anything wrong with it, but because you decided in advance what the conclusion should be
My father, who claims to be a relative of the banana, since we share 50% genes with it, is the one who bears the burden of proof, not the other way around. Whoever claims that a replicating organic clock can be created by itself has the burden of proof, not the other way around.
Science is based on empirical studies, not claims that cannot be tested. Empirical reality shows that bacteria remain bacteria, dogs remain dogs and cats remain cats. As soon as someone *believes* that given millions of years chemical soup can gradually turn into a cat, he already leaves the scientific plane and enters the religious plane.
He explicitly said that he is a creationist, and it is a fact that the site he refers to is also a site that questions evolution.
This is its only purpose and not the study of science. It's like you wouldn't go learn English from Finnish speakers who don't know English but think they know something. You are looking for equality when it doesn't exist, one side - science is looking for the truth, while the other side marked the goal - there is a God - and then it demands that science accept its assumption and prove it.
Whoever wants to prove that there isn't a pink elephant drinking raspberries behind me but when I turn around he becomes invisible, please let the proof be on him, not me.
Of all the arguments of the creationists there is not a single argument that is able to really compete in the scientific field and this case is no different. Readers who are interested in hearing these answers are invited to the upcoming seminar of Zamir Cohen or Amnon Yitzhak, they will receive the same questions translated into Hebrew there. Those who want to know the truth should hear it first-hand and not a self-interested commentator whose entire goal is to return repentance to his specific religious version.
Avi,
I repeat again, I object to the whole discussion here on the subject of evolution because that is not the subject of the article.
Regarding your words about xianghua, I'm afraid that you are again suffering from emotional discourse. There is no logic in cataloging a person in the category of creationists and therefore stop discussing with him. There is also no point in stating that nothing will move him from his mind - because this is his problem with himself, and his words still have validity.
One should refer to the things and not to the speakers, whether the speaker will accept the comments or not is his personal matter. I believe there are more anonymous non-commenting readers here who are interested in hearing the answers.
Matty, leave Xingua alone, he is a creation and nothing will change his mind. He is not ready to accept that there was a transition from one species to another but the very matter of fusing chromosomes means the creation of a new species (species are defined by not being able to mate in fertile pairs).
Shingua, doing what you claim no one has done, every day in dozens of laboratories around the world. You simply change the requirements every time something is proven to you that you claim without understanding it.
When, see here:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392
xianghua How do you know that man originally carried 48 chromosomes?
When, when you say "chromosome findings" do you mean the fusion of chromosome #2? If so, know that fusion occurred at all in man, who originally carried 48 chromosomes. What does ancient man have to do with it exactly?
Camila, scientific standards are those that allow the refutation of a theory. The designer theory can be disproved: find a gradual process that creates proteins and disprove the theory. So far, no scientist has done it.
Is this a coincidence?
I came across a piece written byRoey Tsezana [author of this article] on Ynet about a year and a half ago:
About three years ago, we received a question from reader Idan Amit, who was surprised to discover that the transmission range of a car remote control increases when he holds it to his head. "Is there a connection between the things or did I just leave Efen?" asked Idan, and we did the right thing: we wrote that he did leave Efen and went for a drink. But we recently received another question on the matter, so we went to check it in depth with Ravid Barak, a doctoral student in nanotechnology at the Technion - who, to our surprise, confirmed the things without filtering that we have stupid readers and that we should leave her alone. "The electromagnetic signals emitted by the remote control react to the transition in the brain", she explained, "and open the car".
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3850194,00.html
what do you think? "modesty"?! "Modesty"?! You made Roy laugh. "Maafan", and "Dabil" are more common words in his radius, check in depth?! Only if another question comes up.
Modesty and humility do not require a return to theories that were rejected 150 years ago. If someone has a theory that explains the phenomena (and has not been disproved), he is welcome to offer it in the relevant forums (i.e. the scientific journals), just saying from a gut feeling that a certain theory is wrong (and certainly the theory they describe as the theory of evolution is wrong - it is not the true theory of evolution) is not enough To disprove a theory in science. should be positive.
My father, the theory of evolution is not a scarecrow in my eyes at all and mainly because the findings of the chromosomes indisputably illustrate the prediction of a transition from an ancient man to the present man. But this is not the place to discuss evolution, but about the modesty and humility required when engaging in science.
withering,
1. In response 310397 you deviated from the topic I was discussing (religious adherence to the theory of evolution and condemning the other side as scientifically irrelevant) to my personal opinion:
"In order to understand where you stand, why do you think a creator is required? For example, you alluded to an apparent problem with the chances of any events occurring, could you elaborate on this matter and other things that in your opinion require the existence of an intelligent creator?"
While in scientific discourse - a. My personal opinion is not a function at all. B. You are supposed to refer to the subject of the article and not skim from it to other subjects. That's why I answered you with: "It's a bit long and I'll leave it for another time."
2. In response 310420 you asked as a matter of fact about my own words - with questions that I must answer correctly. But you ended again with a personal reference and disqualification of my way of thinking: "There are two more important points that arise from your previous responses in which problems are again presented in the way of thinking of religious people" - therefore I concluded that this is not a scientific discourse, and if so my response is unnecessary.
When,
It is certain that a discussion cannot take place when one side makes substantive claims and refers to the substance of the other's words (for example here https://www.hayadan.org.il/shechtman-victory-of-science-0810118/#comment-310397
And here:https://www.hayadan.org.il/shechtman-victory-of-science-0810118/#comment-310420
) while the other avoids and dismisses others in his own way. I asked you substantive questions, I didn't get answers from you, that's a fact. We will leave the aforementioned conclusions to the readers.
For your information, scientific discourse requires a framework of certain rules of the game (such as the use of arguments based on sound logic and scientific facts), scientific discourse cannot be based on gut feelings, factual errors and illogical thought processes. In a proper scientific discourse there is no place for ridicule, contempt and rejection (although they may still arise because scientists are also human beings after all), but "discussions" with science deniers of any kind are not scientific discourse because at least one party in that discourse does not adhere to the rules of the game that are worthy of discourse such a. The rules of the game are not just my whim or that of another scientist, by definition they are the only framework to discuss rational things (in general and science topics in particular) and say something meaningful about them.
When, if you read the articles I referred to, you should have understood unequivocally that there are no failures in evolution as the scientists study it, but only in the filtered version of the Pans - they build a scarecrow of the theory that has a very tenuous connection to the real theory, and then they make a poo and the scarecrow falls , but that says nothing about the creature the scarecrow imitates. Happy holiday.
Camilla, can't understand what the connection is between failures in the theory of evolution and religion. If there are failures in the theory - I have no excuses to make them disappear. And those who use them in order to reject the words of detractors of evolution - this is nothing but teaching about the level of discussion he is capable of. The so-called "pseudo discussion"...
Indeed, all he has to do is let the intelligent reader read and get an impression of who behaves like Shechtman's friends, following this I expect him to take stock of whether there is room in the scientific discourse for ridicule, contempt and rejection from a place of emotions.
happy holiday to you, your family and all the participants of the pseudo discussion.
When,
https://www.hayadan.org.il/shechtman-victory-of-science-0810118/#comment-310428
Your words were rejected because of things that your words contained, precisely for this reason I bothered to stick to the things you wrote in your comments here (and which happen to be very reminiscent of well-known arguments of creationists, mainly Christians by the way but not only). I have pointed out problems that exist in my opinion and asked questions that I think should be asked especially in light of the style of your previous responses. The intelligent reader will read, be impressed, and then choose where he thinks he can read things that are close in spirit to the spirit of science. The things that are close to the spirit of religion, everyone knows where they can be found and in abundance. You choose your choices and your full right to do so of course. And regardless, I wish you and your whole family a happy holiday.
1. As mentioned, I reserved the last word for you, so I have no interest in responding to the religious issue.
2. When I commented on the theory of creationism, I did not intend to go into the subject itself, but pointed out the religious adherence of the writer to the theory of evolution to the point of condemning the other side as it is supposed to be pseudo-science. To the same extent, I would claim this about any other dispute in the world of science - a dispute that is dragged into the realms of emotions and religious devotion.
3. Typing correction to a previous comment: "You mention Science and Nature and believe that by doing so they give consent
According to your definitions, what is science and what is pseudo-science?!"
4. Happy holiday, rose and success.
If you are not interested in the creation theory, why did you bother to comment for the first time on Roy's words on the subject in the article? And you also wrote that these are scientists, while this claim threw so many people in the trash who called it repentance and drew their intellectual strength from dealing with solving the world's problems to grinding issues of an egg born on Yom Tov?
The whole rational idea is that people should be productive and not waste their time on useless things, while the scumbags in their lectures disrupt science and make fun of it, causing the exact opposite to the innocent souls who fall into their net. You have no idea how many Nobel Prizes could have been won by people who instead wasted our time and money on pseudoscientific nonsense. (For the purpose of the matter, not necessarily a return to the Jewish religion, but to any other religion or sect).
You mention Science and Nature and believe that by all of them they give consent to your definitions of what is science and what is pseudo-science?!
I am not at all interested in the theory of creation. The article deals with the "tragedy of the scientists" while acknowledging the problem that even in the scientific establishment there is sometimes an "almost religious adherence to theories that have lost their strength". And for some reason you consider it an interest to illustrate this with a committee - while deviating from the topic of the article and the discussion. (My first response dealt with religious adherence to the theory of evolution).
I leave you the honor of having the last word on the matter. A civilized discussion does not take place here anyway.
I assure you that adherence to the scientific consensus has brought the site to the evaluation of the universities and the Academy of Sciences.
These are the bodies I need to refer to and not all kinds of religious people who don't like that creationism doesn't get the scientific thumbs up, or global warming deniers who think that threats should be used to change the line of science towards them, or the New Agers who think that science is just another field of knowledge equal to Equal.
This is science, as I have already said to both you and the global warming deniers - go and influence Science and Nature, and then I will have no choice but to change course along with them. I myself do not have the authority to change the scientific consensus as it is and cancel with my hand a decision of what is science and what is pseudo-science.
I think you are doing yourself a disservice.
And how did I get this dubious nickname? Also according to "scientific" criteria?
This is not a scientific or "scientific" claim, but a cold analysis of all the pan arguments we have read so far. Apart from that, all the courts that discussed the issue in the USA determined that creationism is a religious agenda. Do you want to forcefully go back 15 years?
I forgot the quotation marks of course: the bottom line is that I will not have an answer to a "scientific" claim according to which there is a "problem in the way of thinking of religious people"
Camila, I have no interest in having a cultureless discussion. I did not come to preach religion or Judaism, but my words are rejected because of "problems in the way of thinking of religious people". And if so, I wonder why I have to say too many words, the bottom line is that I will not have an answer to a scientific claim according to which there is a "problem in the way of thinking of religious people".
Father, I oppose brainwashing on both sides. It's just that I didn't come to speak in the name of religion (it seems that you suffer from a sense of persecution to the extent that anyone you see who denies evolution is immediately dismissed as a quack who benefits from thousands of websites that speak their mind, and only you poor people with a few lonely volunteers from the light department.) I came to discuss Roy's words, which in my opinion distort and invalidate The opposite side out of a desire that I don't know the origin of, (guessing that it is a reaction from the Creator's permission and the prohibition of traveling on Shabbat) in a non-scientific approach.
It's strange to me that a site that takes a scientific approach refers to speakers instead of things. But this article clearly clarifies the pettiness of all the people in the world. including scientists.
If that's the line, I have no interest in continuing the discussion because it is unnecessary for me to conduct a discussion that is constantly diverted to religious issues and rabbis.
When,
Can you at least explain some puzzling claims you made?
For example, you wrote that you personally do not rule out the theory of evolution (I assume that you must mean the theory of the common origin of species which is based on evolution which is an existing fact) even though it is disproven in your eyes. If it is unfounded in your eyes, what exactly do you get in it?
You also wrote: "Without any shame, the author of this article describes creationists as 'pseudo-science speakers', as if mathematics and probability is not science." Since I know quite a few "mathematical" and "probabilistic" arguments (I assume you meant probability and not likelihood) of creationists (including those who hold academic degrees from real research institutions) I know that their prevailing arguments are at best just gross mistakes. What is even more widespread by many creationists is the distortion of studies and the drawing of conclusions that cannot be drawn from those studies, sometimes even in stark contrast to what the perpetrators of the research themselves have concluded. This has been demonstrated on this site several times. That's why the description you quoted about the creationists not only fits them but even does them a little favor in my personal opinion. From your words it is implied that there are clear refutations (that for some reason all life science scientists ignore them). I would love to know new "refutations" on the subject that are based on mathematics and probability if you can point them out, in my ignorance, I don't seem to know any.
You wrote: "Well, just as you claim that the creationists 'as if' work scientifically - so they will argue against you." - Assuming that it is impossible for both scientists and creationists to act scientifically, can you think of a way to distinguish who is right and who is wrong (and maybe even who is telling the truth and who is lying)? By the way, do you know what the scientific work framework is? (Those who do not engage in science do not always know what the rules are that scientific work requires).
You wrote: "My main argument then is that the species tree is not sacred let alone 'proven'." - It seems you are not a scientist. For your information, there is nothing in science that is sacred and the proof of this is the scientific revolutions that have taken place in the past and will probably take place in the future. But scientific revolutions only happen when a better scientific theory is found that can both describe and explain everything that was known until now and also clarifies questions that the replaced theory could not explain. The tree of species in its accepted arrangement is not sacred, and not even the inevitable conclusion that such a tree is the best explanation as of this moment for the collections of facts related to the subject. If another theory is proposed that can explain everything the current theory explains and also offer an explanation for things we still have no knowledge about, the scientific community will be forced, forced! (just as happened with Prof. Shechtman) to accept the theory. There is also a lot of evidence for this kind of change in perception in the history of science. It is implied that you have a better alternative explanation, maybe even proven, could you share it with us?
You wrote: "What is important is to recognize the pettiness of the scientists who are fixed in their opinion, create a consensus, and anyone who does not fit?! See the article on how Shechtman was treated: at first he was considered wrong, later a fraud, and in a short time - no less than 'assigned in scientific circles'." - It is implied that in your eyes it is important to automatically include in science all the information that is offered. So it's true, with such an approach they would immediately accept Shechtman's findings, but just as easily they would also accept all kinds of other, wrong opinions, some of them due to cheating (which is not common among scientists, but it cannot be said that it does not exist, so scientists in general are very careful not to fall into this trap ) and some of them in good faith, due to a hidden flaw in the way the experiment was performed or a flaw in the process of drawing conclusions. Many of those who are involved in science encountered in their work a discovery that seemed surprising and exciting at first and already imagined how it would be published in one of the major newspapers and bring international recognition, but then it turned out that overall a mistake was made in the calculation or in the review of the experiment. Sometimes the researcher himself does not discover the mistake and is forced to go through a little trouble when colleagues reveal the flaw, much to his shame. Relatively rarely, a situation occurs where a researcher exceeds something real and is ignored and even ostracized. The beauty of science is that even if the disclosure of the discovery is delayed, it is doomed to happen (assuming that it is indeed a real discovery) as happened in this case and in many other cases. I'm saying something serious that maybe there will be people who won't like it, people (the scientists) are less important in science. What is important is the correct description of the world, one that matches the facts and logical thinking. The scientific consensus is not a caprice but arises from the same recognition of a certain description as the best in relation to other descriptions and a very good and very convincing reason is needed to accept a different description, and the responsibility to convince is on the one who offers the alternative. As many others did, Schechtman presented a strange, illogical and improbable phenomenon in the light of what was known at the time, except that in his case it was not a mistake and therefore it is good that he insisted (and the fact that the system allowed him to exist long enough for him to be able to convince all the others that in his case he was right). What is important when, is that in science (as opposed to religion for example) there are no sacred theories (principles of faith if you will), all of them by definition are the best description as of this moment, and all of them may be replaced by better theories (with pre-defined and non-capricious criteria). Since many creationists have proven beyond any doubt that they do not obey the rules of the scientific method, it is clear that there is no reason for scientists to expand the consensus for them to include their errors as well. It may be important to you that science allows this, but it is very important to science (and scientists) not to allow this. At the same time, the scientific way is open to anyone, even a non-scientist, to provide scientific explanations (provided that they meet the minimal but not necessarily easy criteria of using sound logic and relying on facts). I know of several cases in which people who are not scientists proposed a proof (in mathematics) or an observation and experiment that led to changes and were accepted in the same scientific field and this is not surprising because it is not really important to science who provides the best description of reality.
You wrote: "Also, you take your words as a so-called scientific truth 'these changes accumulated over hundreds of millions of years', while by lateral transfer much fewer years would be enough for this." - Why do you write so-called scientifically? All the evidence does indicate that most of the evolution took place through tiny changes and over hundreds of millions of years. The understanding of the mechanisms, the manner and frequency in which lateral transfers and the more common "normal" mutations occur, support this. I hope you are not trying to argue here that the fact of the existence of lateral transfer shows us that the world is 6000 years old?
There are two more important points that arise from your previous comments in which problems are presented again in the way of thinking of religious people, but maybe I will leave that for another time.
Indeed, telling the truth is brainwashing, really when. Only liars are allowed to brainwash in seminars, yeshiva, sermons in church or mosque, and influence the curriculum, but the scientific truth is invalid because everyone who speaks for it is brainwashed?
What will happen, after the global warming deniers and the evolution deniers who attack here in the last week as if the world will be destroyed if science does not accept their wrong claim, what is the next step? That the supporters of smoking will say again that there is no proof that it causes cancer?
And since there are endless lies and only one truth, then it should be suffocated in the name of pluralism and enlightened people must not oppose the attack on them because it is immoral. It is a fact that I am in good company, that the Hebrew University prevented a conference of evolution deniers and that the Ministry of Education decided to stop sponsoring a person who denies evolution and global warming with one ticket, because if we don't answer, the public will think, God forbid, that there are equal parties here that are arguing between themselves, and not one side that constantly fights and forbids him to speak , whereas liars have endless means of communication. There is only one scientific site, there are thousands of repentance sites and there are even several sites of global warming deniers in Hebrew. Those who want their opinion are welcome to enter them and stop bothering the surfers who come to study science.
And finally, as I've always said - I generally follow Science and Nature, and these are their lines regarding evolution and warming - that evolution takes place and that the Earth is warming due to human activity. Not good for you, try to change their line. They have thousands of experts and I have a number of volunteers who help me.
Camilla, this is a bit long and I'll leave it for another time.
1. My father, if you call the supporters of the creation theory quacks, this is not a mistake, and I hope you will stick to your mistake.
2. Transverse gene transfer changes the "rules of the game of evolution" which you sanctified in your previous words with the hidden claim that it is not possible to meet the requirement for a "complete mixing of all the dice in each generation". My main argument then is that the species tree is not sacred let alone "proven".
Also you take your words as a so-called scientific truth "these changes accumulated over hundreds of millions of years" while by lateral transfer much fewer years would be enough for this.
3. I think this is the place to quote my second response to this article:
"Father, I do not intend to enter into a discussion on the subject, just as you claim that the creationists are "as if" working scientifically - so they will also argue against you. And many keyboard keystrokes have already been poured and will be poured on the subject.
What is important is to recognize the pettiness of the scientists who are fixed in their opinion, create a consensus, and anyone who does not fit?! See the article on how Shechtman was treated: at first he was considered wrong, later a fraud, and in a short time - no less than "assigned in scientific circles".
And on the issue of creation, here - without any shame the author of this article describes the proponents of creation as "pseudo-science speakers", as if mathematics and probability is not science. If this approach is not "shooting an arrow and drawing a target", I don't know what hypocrisy is."
And I add: I see no point and logic in discussing the theory of evolution here, especially not in light of the fact that I personally do not refute it. In my opinion, it is just unfounded in its points of failure and there is no need to be alarmed and blame those who identify its points of failure as quacks or panderers.
Because this behavior along with the brainwashing of the readers, as it were, whoever claims creation is speaking pseudo-science is hypocrisy and repeats the mistake of Shechtman's friends.
When is this not true - you brought up the issue of creationism and claimed that it was scientists and I had to prove you wrong.
As for my article - it does not contradict anything, it at most changes the order of the branches in the tree and makes it much more complex than previously thought but does not change in principle for a simple reason - the raw material of evolution is the changes, and it does not care how they were made - whether by normal inheritance (drift genoty), inherited with mutations, in lateral transmission, or in any other way. The minor changes from generation to generation are the main raw material and alongside it there are other things as I mentioned - by the way there is also something called epigenetics - the control of switching genes on and off that causes a difference in the external behavior of the creature. You remain stuck in an argument with the facts that were known 150 years ago when Darwin's book came out. Science, on the other hand, is constantly evolving. What is beautiful is that despite these discoveries, the basic theory of evolution has remained the same.
By the way, an excellent example of lateral transfer was known all these years - the mitochondria which was probably a virus that infected the first cell, and since then it maintains its own genetic sequence separate from the DNA of the cell nucleus, so it is not clear why more examples of lateral transfer would contradict evolution. Of course, once it was absorbed by a creature and continued in its descendants, it undergoes natural selection like any other hereditary factor.
Note that Darwin knew nothing about heredity and genes, yet the theory of evolution also suited the rediscovery of Mendel's theory at the beginning of the 20th century.
Evolution - far beyond a reasonable doubt
Comments on evolution, intelligent design and everything in between
When,
To understand where you stand, why do you think a creator is required? For example, you alluded to an apparent problem with the chances of any events occurring, could you elaborate on this matter and other things that in your opinion require the existence of an intelligent creator?
Father, I believe you have already listed all your arguments against the creation theory, I suggest to save you time, direct me to all your arguments and I can answer them one by one.
But in general, to deviate from the subject of this article on its consequences (the modesty and humility required of scientists) to the subject of evolution is not a scientific style. Just as deviating from a scientific discussion about the correctness and incorrectness of things into accusations of the Bats and the Discovery Institute, whose arguments I do not know at all, is unscientific, but this is what Shechtman's friends did when they mocked him and when the head of the research group demanded that he leave because of the disgrace he brings to the group.
And finally, I refer you to the articles you wrote on the subject of "horizontal gene transfer" which in one way contradicts the "rules of the game of evolution" as it is described today. So an obsessive defense of the theory of "minimum and cumulative changes from generation to generation" is somewhat unnecessary at this point.
Creationists use scientific tools, without knowing how to use them. They think that large numbers make an impression, and try to show that there is no chance of the formation of DNA or any other long molecule, but this is of course nonsense, because the molecule exists and therefore the chance of its formation is 1. In order for their calculation to be successful, they change the rules of the game of evolution and require a complete mixing of All the dice in each generation, which of course is not true, the changes from generation to generation are minimal but cumulative (genetic drift) and here and there a mutation that succeeds or an indifferent mutation that suddenly has an advantage with the change in environmental conditions.
These changes accumulated over hundreds of millions of years to the wonderful richness of life that we see today and which was, by the way, about 400 million years ago much more diverse even than today.
Evolution is proven beyond any doubt in dozens of different test lines, whether in the analysis of the differences between animal DNA, whether in fossils, and can even be observed directly (bacterial resistance to antibiotics is the classic example). Therefore there is no point in all these calculations. If the creationists wanted to make real calculations they would have to include all the parameters and not just the randomness. In the nonsense of the Discovery Institute, which is also translated into Hebrew by Israeli scholars, there is no mention of all these things, but only the misconception that the mixing is done anew in every generation from the ground up.
Therefore, all the calculations in which the theory of evolution does not stand up to the test are calculations whose basic premise is wrong and they only convince people who do not really know what evolution is, but only through the sieve of the pantheists.
And as for 3. There are indeed two types of creationists - those who literally believe in what is written in the Bible - that the age of the world is 6,000 years (there are some Christian sects that also compromise on ten thousand, but this is negligible of course), and those who do not specify the age but still believe that someone had to create the world/universe .
And one more thing, these attempts to claim that evolution is improbable, also cover the shamelessness of creationism - which has nothing to offer except attacking evolution. Creationists do not have any positive alternative ordered theory, and that is not how science is built.
On second thought, I apologize for the way I expressed myself in section 2 above. There is no doubt that you deserve a lot of credit. I would say very very big. About all your articles and the site in general. In the flow of writing I did not pay attention to the meaning of my words. Please accept my apology, along with my claims.
1. What is the connection between calculating the probability of an event - and all the calculations in which the theory of evolution does not stand the test?! Is the calculation of the amount of material present on the earth compared to the material required for a random evolutionary path - a pseudo-science?
2. Regarding credit, if the content of the articles you wrote and edited are similar to this article I am satisfied if you deserve something for them. Approving an article that turns scientific arguments into pseudoscience, and mentioning the controversy about the evolution of species along with homeopathy does you no good scientifically.
3. There is no connection between the theory of creation and the statement that the age of the world is 6000 years, according to the author of the article, the conclusion that there is a creator does not require the age of the world and does not rule out the way in which species develop, it only brings evolution to the point of being able to face improbable problems that arise due to the trajectory The randomness required if we rule out creation.
for when The kind of math and probabilities that creationists use to calculate odds of a future event. The probability of an event that has already happened is 1.
Give me credit that I already know how to distinguish between real science and pseudo-science pretending to be science, at least after 14 thousand articles, several thousand of which I wrote and the rest I edited on the website.
Schechtman proves that the chance of an unacceptable theory being correct is very low, one in several millions. So Judah and his ilk can relax.
Father, I do not intend to enter into a discussion on the subject, because just as you claim that the creationists are "as if" working scientifically - they will also argue against you. And many keyboard keystrokes have already been poured and will be poured on the subject.
What is important is to recognize the pettiness of the scientists who are fixed in their opinion, create a consensus, and anyone who does not fit?! See the article on how Shechtman was treated: at first he was considered wrong, later a fraud, and in a short time - no less than "assigned in scientific circles".
And on the issue of creation, here - without any shame the author of this article describes the proponents of creation as "pseudo-science speakers", as if mathematics and probability is not science. If this approach is not "shooting an arrow and drawing a target", I don't know what hypocrisy is.
When, creationists pretend they are following the laws of science, this claim is convincing at most Fox reporters. They rape the scientific method.
If you read their studies you will see that they first shoot the arrow and then draw a target around it, which is exactly the opposite of the scientific way.
Besides, this is about one Christian scientist who repented and managed to insert a closed article that proves that a certain molecule could not have been created (but it exists) and for this single article whose methods were as I mentioned - rape methods - the Discovery Institute has been celebrating for several years.
extremely ridiculous. After all, in the scientific community there are creationists who claim this according to science, only that "it is precisely in the hallowed halls of science, where scientists are supposed to weigh their words carefully, that we come across bickering and group 'bullying' that is used against creationists. Even in the proud scientific establishment we see an almost religious adherence to theories that do not pass the tests of mathematical plausibility and the other scientific claims of the creationists.
I guess one of the tricks is to stabilize two forks with a coin or a toothpick to the edge of the mouth of a glass. Confirm!
It's not exactly, my father, you also publish things that don't appear in Science News and the like.
Not important
We will continue fasting
(:))
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda and Guy, luckily I'm not the editor of a scientific journal, but of a popular scientific website, so the line I'm taking - sticking to Science and Nature is the line that has proven itself so far and works the best.
Svedamish:
The real question is how my father would have decided to publish the tasteful words of Dan Shechtman and not the nonsense words of thousands of Sabdarmishim.
As you know, Dan Shechtman received his recognition from the community. Users are forced to wade through the talkbacks of sites for the general public. The method works
I hope I was gentle.
good week.
A question to my father Blizovsky
How can a scientific editor of a scientific website or publication decide what to publish out of all the things that do not meet the scientific consensus.
If you came across an article by the young student, Dan Shechtman, that was contrary to any existing scientific consensus, would you publish it?
To remind you, the young student Dan Stetman was a good student but nothing more.
Please respond gently
Good signature
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hello Roy
You can't do this to us.
End the article and leave us with the mystery about the magic (that he taught you and you him).
I am sure, that thanks to your proven ability in using words for good and interesting explanations, you will be able to briefly describe the two magics as well.
Eagerly waiting…